Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[JohnBrown1917]

Nope, I'm under no force whatsoever. You want to punish people for being wealthy, because you have a hate boner for things you don't have.

Here you go. I think they even accept bitcoin.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Reporting and Analysis Branch 2
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328

Yeah, those damn poor, wanting homes and proper food.

[Machismo]

Yeah, those damn poor, wanting homes and proper food.

Well, you guys have the perfect opportunity to give more. Or, is it that you care about homelessness, just not enough to actually do anything about it?

[uuuhname]

That's not an argument. you say you don't like homelessness, I gave you a means to solve it. If you think government is the answer, and want the wealthy to pay more into that government, then by all means, prove me wrong by also giving more to that government.

It's easy to want others to give, but you don't seem to be willing to do it. There's a word for that.

no duh, it's an observation.

I want the government to tax the rich more, end of statement, period. I'm sorry if that upsets you so much that all you have as a response are these childish "well why aren't YOU solving all the world's problems all by yourself, smarty pants?" all your showing here is how uninterested you are in actually hearing what other people have to say. you have a conclusion and all you do is work back from it, without any of the logic or actual thought process needed to get to said conclusion.

[Theodarzna]

do they not know about current events? with Amazon doing a blitz to try and keep workers from unionizing? it's playing out, in front of their faces.

It is a bit deeper even than that evil, though to be sure that is also a vile act by a wretched clique of oligarchs, but elementally the evil within Capitalism itself. The exploitation of workers that forms the basis of profit itself.

[PC2]

By virtue of what they do, they become wealthy purely be the extraction of surplus labor. So yes, they absolutely are.

It's a non sequitur because it doesn't say how rich people are being unethical. Rich people aren't forcing a surplus out of laborers. It's a mutual agreement between both parties so if a laborer doesn't want to create a surplus for other people then they can either do nothing and refuse to work or become self-employed where they create a surplus for themselves.

[uuuhname]

It's a non sequitur because it doesn't say how rich people are being unethical. Rich people aren't forcing a surplus out of laborers. It's a mutual agreement between both parties so if a laborer doesn't want to create a surplus for other people then they can either do nothing and refuse to work or become self-employed where they create a surplus for themselves.

the workers are the ones that give the company value, not the other way around...

[Theodarzna]

It's a non sequitur because it doesn't say how rich people are being unethical.

Exploitation would be unethical in my book, but hey, you do you I guess.

[Felya]

Exploitation would be unethical in my book, but hey, you do you I guess.

How do you feel about oil and coal companies? I believe you referred to them as... ‘unfairly targeted mineral extraction’?

[PC2]

the workers are the ones that give the company value, not the other way around...

No, at most the workers are responsible for half of the value creation. The entrepreneurs who took the initial risk in creating and managing the business get the other half of the credit.

[Machismo]

no duh, it's an observation.

I want the government to tax the rich more, end of statement, period. I'm sorry if that upsets you so much that all you have as a response are these childish "well why aren't YOU solving all the world's problems all by yourself, smarty pants?" all your showing here is how uninterested you are in actually hearing what other people have to say. you have a conclusion and all you do is work back from it, without any of the logic or actual thought process needed to get to said conclusion.

Nah, it's fine... you want other people to pay for all the shit you want. meanwhile, when given the chance to put your money where your mouth was, you avoided it. This is the inherent laziness with socialists and progressives.

[Felya]

No, at most the workers are responsible for half of the value creation. The entrepreneur(s) who took the initial risk in creating and managing the business get the other half of the credit.

Are you suggesting the workers didn’t take on a risk by joining an unproven company?

[uuuhname]

No, at most the workers are responsible for half of the value creation. The entrepreneur(s) who took the initial risk in creating and managing the business get the other half of the credit.

if you don't have workers to make your goods, you have nothing of value to sell.

[Edge-]

This is the inherent laziness with socialists and progressives.

Not, it's a bad faith argument from you and an inability to differentiate between structural fixes and charity. Repeating it endlessly doesn't make it better each time, it makes it worse each time.

[Felya]

if you don't have workers to make your goods, you have nothing of value to sell.

Every worker that starts a new job, is taking on an similar risk, as someone starting a company. While as recent episode of John Oliver has shown, personal bankruptcies has drastically changed for the worse, in 2005.

[uuuhname]

This is the inherent laziness with socialists and progressives.

I mean, you've done a pretty good job demonstrating the intellectual void that is libertarianism, so good on you.

[JohnBrown1917]

Nah, it's fine... you want other people to pay for all the shit you want. meanwhile, when given the chance to put your money where your mouth was, you avoided it. This is the inherent laziness with socialists and progressives.

That is coming from somebody born with as much privilege as you did, what a joke.

[PC2]

Exploitation would be unethical in my book, but hey, you do you I guess.

You haven't shown that the economy is exploitative though. You have some vague notion that creating a surplus for other people is "exploitation" but you haven't done anything to prove the claim.

[Felya]

You haven't shown that the economy is exploitative though. You have some vague notion that creating a surplus for other people is "exploitation" but you haven't done anything to prove the claim.

The fact that you think there is more worth in losing your company, than there is in losing your job, exemplifies a culture of exploitation.

Edit: Think about it... What happened when coal subsidies went out under Trump? Did we lose a coal company or did thousands lose their jobs? Who did the subsidy benefit, while in whose name was it signed? That’s exploitation...

[Machismo]

Not, it's a bad faith argument from you and an inability to differentiate between structural fixes and charity. Repeating it endlessly doesn't make it better each time, it makes it worse each time.

It's not. You want all this stuff done, yet cannot be asked to actually lift a finger to help.

It's not bad faith, it's laziness and hypocrisy on your part.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, you've done a pretty good job demonstrating the intellectual void that is libertarianism, so good on you.

You were given the opportunity to actually backup what you want, but you refused to do it. I guess you aren't as opposed to homelessness ness as you you claimed.

- - - Updated - - -

That is coming from somebody born with as much privilege as you did, what a joke.

Yep, I'm white. That's the privilege I was born with. The same goes for a majority of Americans, and probably most of the people in these threads.

[uuuhname]

You were given the opportunity to actually backup what you want, but you refused to do it. I guess you aren't as opposed to homelessness ness as you you claimed.

lol WTF, do you want me to send you pics of me sending money to the government? to make some point to you that I'm selfish or whatever? Jesus H CHRIST get over yourself dude.